From Gameplay to Green Choices: Paper Goes Green, a Board Game for Fostering Life Cycle Thinking and Sustainable Consumption

Abstract

Public understanding of complex sustainability concepts like life cycle assessment (LCA) is crucial for promoting environmentally responsible consumption yet remains a significant educational challenge. This study introduces and evaluates Paper Goes Green, a competitive board game designed to make abstract LCA principles tangible and personally relevant. The game simulates the paper production chain, compelling players to make strategic decisions about resource allocation, production pathways (conventional vs. green), and waste management to fulfill paper orders. Through a single-group pre-test/post-test design with 85 participants (25 environmental educators and 60 public members), the game’s efficacy was assessed. Paired-sample t-tests revealed significant improvements in participants’ perceived knowledge of green chemistry/LCA (pre-game mean 2.05, post-game 3.24 on a 5-point scale, p < 0.001), pro-environmental attitudes (3.38 to 4.22, p < 0.001), and behavioral intentions toward green consumption (3.97 to 4.44, p < 0.001). These gains correspond to medium-to-large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.94 for knowledge, 0.70 for attitude, 0.71 for behavior), indicating substantial practical impact. Qualitative feedback further highlighted the game’s engaging and thought-provoking nature. Notably, specific design features—such as immediate feedback, player control, and interactivity—were identified as key contributors to learning, fostering systems thinking in players. These findings suggest that Paper Goes Green is a promising educational tool for translating complex environmental science into an engaging, impactful learning experience. The game effectively bridges the gap between abstract concepts and real-world consumer choices, fostering life cycle thinking and empowering players to make greener choices in their daily lives.

1. Introduction

Modern sustainability education faces the challenge of conveying complex concepts like green chemistry and life cycle thinking to the general public. The principles of green chemistry, originally proposed by Anastas and Warner [1], offer a framework for designing chemical processes that minimize environmental and health impacts. Compared to traditional “grey” chemistry, green chemistry emphasizes reducing or eliminating hazardous substances and improving efficiency [2]. Although these concepts were historically taught to technical audiences, there is a growing consensus that sustainability education must extend to consumers and the broader public, since everyday purchasing decisions can significantly influence industrial practices [2]. In reality, the behaviors of suppliers, customers, and the public play a crucial role in determining a product’s overall environmental footprint [3,4]. However, fostering such understanding among non-experts is difficult because it requires connecting everyday choices to abstract scientific principles.

A cornerstone of increasing public environmental literacy is integrating life cycle thinking—understanding a product’s full environmental impact from raw material extraction through manufacturing, use, and disposal [5,6]. Prior studies have highlighted the importance of introducing life cycle assessment (LCA) concepts into education as part of a holistic sustainability perspective [6,7]. In practice, however, public awareness of life cycle impacts remains limited. Heiskanen [8] noted that a lack of life cycle thinking in everyday discourse hinders the adoption of sustainable practices. Sheldon [9] found that while outreach can improve environmental literacy, traditional methods often struggle to make complex scientific concepts accessible to laypeople. This gap between expert knowledge and public understanding means that consumers may not realize the consequences of their purchases across a product’s life cycle. Without effective educational tools, consumers cannot make fully informed green choices [10]. There is a clear need for innovative approaches to help non-specialists grasp the essentials of green chemistry and LCA in the context of daily life.

Game-based learning has emerged as a promising pedagogical solution to this challenge. So-called “serious games”—games designed for educational purposes—can transform abstract concepts into concrete experiences and interactive play [11,12]. Research shows that well-designed educational games can enhance motivation, engagement, and knowledge retention by providing immediate feedback and immersive, problem-solving scenarios [11,12,13]. Games create a safe simulation environment where learners can explore complex systems and learn from the consequences of their decisions [14,15]. In the context of environmental and science education, serious games have been used successfully to teach topics ranging from ecosystem dynamics to climate change and chemistry concepts [14,16]. For example, board and card games have been developed for specific chemistry topics such as organic synthesis [16], polymer chemistry [17], and even the periodic table of elements [18]. These games illustrate that complex scientific knowledge can be conveyed through play. Likewise, digital serious games have addressed sustainability and energy issues, as seen in reviews of energy-related games [19] and climate change education games [20]. Despite these advances, there remains a scarcity of educational games specifically designed to simplify LCA concepts and connect them to everyday consumer products such as paper. Most existing chemistry-related games target either narrow subject matter (e.g., chemical reactions or the periodic table) or professional training contexts [17,19], rather than promoting systems thinking about product life cycles for the general public.

Research Purpose and Questions

In response to this gap, the present study develops and evaluates a new board game called Paper Goes Green. This game is uniquely designed to demystify LCA and green chemistry concepts by linking them to a familiar product—paper—and the choices involved in its production. The core objectives of the study are as follows: (1) to assess the game’s effectiveness in improving participants’ perceived knowledge of life cycle and green chemistry concepts, their pro-environmental attitudes, and their behavioral intentions toward sustainable consumption; and (2) to identify which game design features contribute most to these learning outcomes. By investigating these questions, we aim to demonstrate how gameplay can foster systems thinking and life cycle awareness, ultimately guiding players toward greener consumer choices in real life.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Game Overview and Educational Goals

Paper Goes Green is a competitive board game for 3–4 players, in which each player assumes the role of a paper mill manager striving to fulfill customer orders and earn the most points. The primary educational goal is not to teach specific chemical formulas, but to foster systems thinking and an intuitive understanding of life cycle thinking. In other words, the game is designed to make players aware of how choices in a production chain—from resource inputs to processing steps and waste management—directly impact environmental outcomes and resource efficiency. By simulating the paper production process, the game connects abstract sustainability principles (like waste reduction and energy efficiency) to tangible in-game decisions. Players learn by doing—they experience how using different processes (conventional vs. “green”) leads to different environmental consequences within the game’s simplified model of a paper life cycle.

2.2. Core Mechanics and Strategic Trade-Offs

The gameplay revolves around resource management and action prioritization. Each turn, a player has a limited number of actions (specifically, one action point (AP) per turn) and must choose one of four actions: (1) Collect Resources (gather raw materials and energy); (2) Build a Unit (add a processing unit to their paper production chain); (3) Draw Cards (to obtain more unit cards); or (4) Fulfill an Order (produce paper to complete an order card for points). This action-point system imposes a constant trade-off, forcing players to plan efficiently—a reflection of opportunity cost and limited resources in real-world production.

A central feature is the production chain simulation. The paper-making process is abstracted into a series of unit operations: Pulping → Bleaching → Coating. Each unit is represented by a card that specifies its input requirements (e.g., wood, energy, or special green resources) and its outputs (paper products or pollutants). By chaining these units in sequence, players convert raw materials into finished paper. For example, a simple grey paper can be produced by using a Pulping unit (which requires wood and energy and outputs a sheet of grey paper plus some pollutant tokens) and then treating the waste with a Wastewater Treatment unit. A more refined product like white paper or glossy paper requires additional processing steps: a Bleaching unit to turn grey paper into white, and a Coating unit to finish white paper into glossy paper, each step consuming more energy and potentially generating pollutants. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the unit combinations needed to fulfill orders for grey, white, and glossy paper, respectively.

A key strategic dilemma embedded in the game is the choice between conventional production methods and “green” production units. For each main processing step, players have access to a greener alternative unit that adheres to principles of green chemistry. For instance, instead of the conventional Pulping unit, a player may build a Catalytic Pulping unit that uses an innovative catalyst to reduce energy requirements and waste. These “green” units are more efficient—they consume less energy or produce fewer pollutants than their conventional counterparts—but they come with a special cost: a Green Resource. The Green Resource is a scarce token (conceptually representing advanced technology, investment, or R&D) which players obtain by dedicating an entire turn’s action to acquiring it. This models the real-world scenario where investing in cleaner technology requires upfront resources or effort. Thus, each turn a player must weigh short-term convenience against long-term sustainability benefits: do I use my action to gather immediate materials and produce paper cheaply, or do I invest in Green Resource now so I can build a cleaner unit that will save costs and pollution later? This recurring trade-off between the “conventional path” and the “green path” is the core learning mechanic, forcing players to experience the tension between business-as-usual and sustainable innovation. Paper Goes Green incentivizes the sustainable choices by rewarding players with extra points for using green units (some order cards are designated as “green orders” that yield bonus points but can only be fulfilled if the production chain includes green chemistry units). In game terms, sustainability becomes a strategic advantage—using green units reduces pollution (avoiding the need for as much waste treatment) and can yield bonus points, mirroring real-world scenarios where cleaner production can confer benefits (e.g., efficiency savings, market preference, or regulatory advantages). Figure 4 contrasts the conventional and green versions of the production units, along with their inputs and outputs.

Beyond production mechanics, the game incorporates a few additional rules to enrich strategy and realism. Players can carry limited resources in a “warehouse”, which can be expanded by completing orders (fulfilling a regular order slightly increases storage capacity, while a green order increases it more, simulating how sustainable practices can improve long-term capacity). Some large orders require producing two paper products in one turn, introducing an element of planning for combined or sequential actions. The overall win condition is reaching a target number of completed orders or points; typically, the first to fulfill five orders or the one with the highest points when orders run out wins. This competitive goal structure keeps players engaged while the underlying mechanics ensure they are repeatedly confronted with decisions that illustrate life cycle trade-offs.

2.3. Pedagogical Simplifications and Debriefing

It should be noted that Paper Goes Green, as a board game, uses pedagogical simplifications to represent complex real-world processes. For example, some “green” processes in the game are depicted as zero-emission or requiring a singular abstracted resource, which in reality might not be so absolute. These simplifications are intentional, aimed at highlighting conceptual contrasts (e.g., “green vs. conventional”) within the constraints of a playable game. The design prioritizes clear cause-and-effect relationships over technical detail, in order to make the learning points salient for players. A structured debriefing session follows gameplay to address these nuances and reinforce learning. After each game session, a facilitator guides players in reflecting on their experience and connecting it to real-world sustainability concepts. Key questions in the debrief include: “What strategies led to the highest score and why?”, “What makes the green chemistry processes in the game special or different?”, “Can you see parallels between the game’s processes and pollution in real life?”, and “Will you consider using simpler, less-processed paper products in the future now that you’ve played this game?” (see Supporting Information SI-2 for the full list of debriefing questions). This debriefing is crucial for helping players bridge the gap between the game’s simplified model and the complexities of real-life production and consumption. By discussing questions such as whether they would support products made via greener processes, players are prompted to internalize the system thinking and apply it to their own consumer behavior. In summary, the game coupled with post-play reflection aims to transform an engaging play experience into a meaningful learning opportunity about life cycle impacts and sustainable choices.

2.4. Participants and Procedure

The game was implemented and evaluated in a single-group pre-test/post-test study design. A total of 85 adults participated (N = 85, after excluding a few incomplete responses). These included two cohorts: 25 environmental educators (many of whom are schoolteachers or environmental education center staff) and 60 members of the general public with diverse backgrounds. The educators in the sample averaged roughly 5 years of teaching experience in environmental or science subjects (ranging from new educators to veterans) and were included not only as learners but also as potential disseminators of the game in their own classrooms. The public participants ranged in age from approximately 20 to 50 years, with the majority holding a university degree. All participants took part on a voluntary basis, with no material incentives, driven by interest in sustainability or educational games.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions at the time of the study, all game sessions were conducted online using video conferencing (Google Meet) in conjunction with a digital board game platform (Tabletopia). A total of 14 gameplay sessions were held (with 3–7 participants per session, so that in each session at least one 3–4 player game table was formed). Each session proceeded as follows: participants first completed a pre-game questionnaire (delivered via an online survey) assessing their baseline knowledge, attitudes, and intentions regarding green chemistry and sustainable consumption. Next, the participants received a brief introduction to the rules of Paper Goes Green and then engaged in live gameplay for about 60–90 min under the facilitation of the researchers. During the game, educators and public participants were mixed to allow rich interactions, though this was not a controlled variable. After the game concluded, a structured group debriefing discussion was held (approximately 15–20 min) where players reflected on their strategies and the sustainability concepts represented, guided by the set of questions (as noted in Supporting Information SI-2). Finally, participants completed a post-game questionnaire (similar to the pre-test) to measure changes in the targeted outcomes. All sessions were supervised by the research team to ensure consistency in game facilitation and debriefing.

It should be emphasized that the gameplay itself was the primary intervention—essentially an experiential learning treatment in sustainability education. The debriefing portion served to consolidate and contextualize the learning, which is a recommended practice in game-based learning to maximize concept transfer beyond the game scenario. The online format introduced some technical complexities (players had to learn the Tabletopia interface along with game rules), but it also allowed people from different locations to participate together. Every effort was made by facilitators to mitigate online logistical issues (e.g., explaining how to drag cards or exchange resources virtually). Sessions were recorded for reference, and observational notes were taken, especially focusing on participant engagement and any notable moments of insight or confusion during the game.

2.5. Assessment Instrument

The effectiveness of Paper Goes Green was evaluated through a questionnaire administered immediately before and after gameplay. This survey instrument was adapted from established measures in the environmental education and game-based learning literature (see Supporting Information SI-3 for the full instrument). It comprised three main scales corresponding to our targeted learning outcomes, plus additional items to probe the gaming experience:

2.6. Perceived Knowledge and Awareness (K)

A self-assessment of the participant’s understanding of green chemistry and life cycle concepts. For example, items asked whether the participant knows what “green chemistry” means, can identify characteristics of a greener manufacturing process, and understands various life cycle stages of a product (modified from [9] and others). Higher scores indicate greater confidence and awareness. This scale included a mix of Likert-style statements (e.g., “I know what green chemistry is”) and a multiple-choice checklist item about understanding specific life cycle stages (raw material, manufacturing, transportation, use, disposal).

2.7. Pro-Environmental Attitude (A)

Measuring the participant’s attitudes toward environmental issues and sustainable practices. Items were drawn from standard environmental attitude instruments [21,22] but tailored to the context of paper and product consumption. For instance, one statement was “The more processes required to produce the paper, the more pollution is generated—I am concerned by this fact”, which gauges whether participants internalize the connection between product complexity and environmental impact. Another item: “I would pay attention to the quality of paper I use”, reflecting whether they care about choosing simpler paper if it’s more eco-friendly.

2.8. Green Consumption Behavioral Intention (B)

Assessing intentions to engage in sustainable consumer behavior, specifically related to choosing green products or reducing consumption of highly processed goods. Example items include the following: “I intend to use as little processed paper as possible, so long as it meets my basic needs”, and “If I knew which products were made following green chemistry principles, I would preferentially buy and support those products”. These items align with the idea of responsible consumption—a key aim of life cycle education [10,23].

Participants rated items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). In addition to these outcome scales, the post-game survey included items to evaluate the game’s learning features (adapted from [24] and others). These features included perceived Feedback (did the game give informative feedback on decisions?), Control (could participants learn at their own pace and feel in control?), Challenge/Balance (was the game appropriately challenging and balanced?), Clarity of Rules and Goals, Engagement (enjoyment and willingness to replay or recommend), and Social Interactions (interactivity and competition). Each feature was measured by 3–4 statements (on the same Likert scale) such as “The design of the game allows me to understand the consequences of certain decisions I made” (Feedback) and “I would like to play this game again” (Engagement). Including these items allowed us to explore which game design elements resonated most with participants and how they might correlate with learning outcomes.

The questionnaire was reviewed by two environmental education experts for content validity and was pilot tested with a small group (N = 8) for clarity prior to the main study. The internal consistency of the scales was acceptable and high. In our sample, the composite Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior scales had Cronbach’s α values of approximately 0.96, 0.95, and 0.96 respectively (for post-test responses), indicating excellent reliability [25]. The game feature subscales ranged a bit lower (some in the 0.6–0.8 range, likely due to the small number of items per feature), but overall, the instrument provided a reliable measure of key constructs.

2.9. Data Analysis

Data from the pre- and post-game surveys were analyzed using paired-sample t-tests to determine whether the mean scores on the K, A, and B scales significantly increased after the game. Given the sample size (85 paired responses) and an expected large effect from such an immersive intervention, we set the significance level at α = 0.05 (two-tailed). In addition to p-values, we calculated Cohen’s d for each outcome to gauge the effect size (with d ≈ 0.2 considered small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large) [26,27]. The assumption of normality for difference scores was checked and met sufficiently for t-tests (considering the robustness of t-test to moderate deviations given N = 85). We also examined sub-items (K1, K2, K3, etc.) to see which specific knowledge components changed the most.

Furthermore, Pearson correlation analyses were performed between the game feature ratings (feedback, control, etc., from the post-survey) and the learning gains (post–pre difference scores) to explore what design aspects might be linked to better outcomes. Qualitative data from the debriefing discussions and open-ended survey questions were analyzed thematically. We coded participants’ comments for themes such as “engagement”, “difficulty”, “strategy learning”, and “real-world connection” to supplement the quantitative results with illustrative quotes and insights.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 25.0. Given the exploration nature of correlating game features with outcomes and the relatively small sample for such analysis, we did not apply strict correction for multiple comparisons; rather, we treated those results as indicative and triangulated them with qualitative findings. Ethical considerations: participants provided informed consent, and the study protocol was approved by the expert committee. No sensitive personal data was collected.

3. Results

3.1. Learning Outcomes

Pre vs. Post: Analysis of the 85 paired samples confirmed that Paper Goes Green had a significant positive impact on all three measured dimensions.

Table 1. Pre-test and Post-test Scores for Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior (N = 85). Values are mean (SD). All improvements are significant at p < 0.001.

Scale	Pre-Test M (SD)	Post-Test M (SD)	Mean Diff.	t	Cohen’s d
Knowledge	2.05 (0.98)	3.24 (0.86)	+1.19	11.68 ***	0.94 (large)
Attitude	3.38 (0.77)	4.22 (0.60)	+0.84	11.02 ***	0.70 (medium)
Behavior	3.97 (0.85)	4.44 (0.68)	+0.47	6.12 ***	0.71 (large)

*** p < 0.001 for all paired comparisons (df = 84).

summarizes the pre-test and post-test scores. On the Knowledge scale, participants’ self-assessed knowledge and awareness of green chemistry/LCA concepts increased from a pre-test mean of 2.05 (SD = 0.98) to a post-test mean of 3.24 (SD = 0.86). This gain of +1.19 points is statistically significant (t(84) = 11.68, p < 0.001) and corresponds to a large effect (d = 0.94). In practical terms, participants moved from roughly “disagree” towards “agree” on knowledge items—a substantial improvement in perceived understanding. The Attitude scale means rose from 3.38 (SD = 0.77) to 4.22 (0.60), an increase of +0.84 (t(84) = 11.02, p < 0.001, d = 0.70). This indicates a significant shift towards more pro-environmental attitudes; for example, more participants agreed after the game that they are concerned about pollution from product manufacturing and that they value simpler, cleaner products. The Behavioral Intention scale mean increased from 3.97 (SD = 0.85) to 4.44 (0.68), a +0.47 change (t(84) = 6.12, p < 0.001, d = 0.71). Notably, the behavior intention was relatively high even before the game (nearly 4.0 on average, indicating many already leaned somewhat pro-environmental), yet the game still produced a significant boost. Participants reported stronger intentions to seek out green-made products and to reduce use of over-processed goods after playing. As a non-parametric sensitivity check, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted for the three outcome scales—perceived knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intention. Results indicated significant post-test increases for all scales (N = 85; knowledge: Z = 7.53, p < 0.001; attitude: Z = 7.69, p < 0.001; behavioral intention: Z = 5.73, p < 0.001), consistent with the paired-sample t-test results. These findings confirm that the observed improvements were robust regardless of normality assumptions.

Looking at specific survey items provides further insight. Within the Knowledge scale, the item asking participants to identify life cycle stages (K3: understanding of raw material, manufacturing, use, etc.) showed one of the largest improvements (mean increased from 2.77 to 4.14 on a 5-point awareness scale, d ≈ 1.1). This suggests the game was highly effective in conveying the idea of a product life cycle—players came to recognize more stages of a product’s journey after having simulated it in the game. Another knowledge item about recognizing green process characteristics (K2) also had a very large effect (d > 1.2); participants became much more confident that they could tell what makes a process “green.” These substantial gains on specific knowledge points align with the game’s design emphasis on life cycle stages and green vs. conventional process comparison. On the Attitude scale, an item measuring awareness of the relationship between “more processing = more pollution and resource use” (A3) increased markedly (from 2.44 to 3.79, d > 1.0), indicating that many players had an “aha” moment of the trade-offs of complex production. In the Behavior scale, the item “I would like to know if products I use are made via green processes” (B2) jumped from 3.69 to 4.32, suggesting heightened curiosity and information-seeking intention—a positive outcome for encouraging informed consumer behavior.

Overall, the progression from Knowledge gains to Attitude shift to Behavior intention observed here is in line with classic models of environmental education outcomes [21,22]. In our study, knowledge had the largest effect size, which is typical for a short-term intervention [28]—participants first dramatically increased their understanding, which then influenced their attitudes and intentions to a somewhat lesser (but still significant) degree. This pattern reflects the idea that enhancing knowledge and awareness is often a prerequisite step that can subsequently lead to attitude and behavior changes [23]. It is encouraging that even behavioral intentions showed a strong improvement, since translating environmental knowledge into intended action is often challenging.

3.2. Game Design Features and Player Feedback

Qualitative feedback from participants and additional post-game ratings both point to specific game design elements that contributed to the learning experience. In post-survey ratings, the game’s Feedback aspect was highly rated: participants agreed that the game allowed them to see the consequences of their decisions. This aligns with many comments during debriefing, where players mentioned appreciating how “the game shows you immediately when you pollute—you have to deal with the waste”. The Control aspect was also noted: players felt the game allowed them to learn at their own pace, experimenting with different strategies (one educator noted, “I liked that you could try a risky move and if it didn’t work, you learn and adjust next turn”). The Engagement level was very high—over 80% of participants said they found the game fun and would play again, highlighting that the competitive and interactive nature kept them invested in the outcome. Notably, participants frequently described the game as “engaging” and “thought-provoking” during the debriefing. They reported that they became emotionally involved in trying to optimize their paper production and minimize waste, which suggests the game succeeded in capturing attention and making the content meaningful.

Several game design characteristics were explicitly identified by players as influential for learning. “Feedback” in the context of gameplay—such as the need to immediately handle waste tokens whenever they produced pollution—made the environmental consequences feel concrete. One participant remarked, “Every time I saw that red pollution tokens pile up, I thought, this is just like real life factories!” This immediate feedback loop is consistent with what serious games literature highlights as important for learning [24]. “Interactivity” and “Social competition” were also mentioned; players enjoyed competing and cooperating (trading resources, racing for order cards) which mirrors findings that social interaction in games can enhance learning and motivation [29]. The “sense of control” or agency was another factor: players could make meaningful choices, and this autonomy is known to support intrinsic motivation in game-based learning [30]. Importantly, many of these features—feedback, control, challenge, interaction—have been linked in prior studies to better learning outcomes in serious games [24,31].

We found some supporting quantitative evidence for these associations in our data. For instance, the participants who gave higher ratings for the game’s feedback and clarity were often the ones who showed larger knowledge gains (Pearson r ≈ 0.3–0.4, p < 0.01 for correlation between Feedback feature score and Knowledge gain). Similarly, those who rated the game as highly engaging tended to report greater increases in pro-environmental intention (though the direction of causality could be both ways: being engaged likely helped learning, and learning success likely made the game feel more engaging). While our sample size limits strong conclusions, these trends align with the idea that well-designed game elements can facilitate deeper learning [30].

Given the exploratory nature of these analyses, both unadjusted and FDR-adjusted p values were reported [32]. All correlations that reached significance before adjustment remained significant after FDR correction, indicating that the observed relationships were not due to inflated Type I error.

Participants’ feedback also pointed out areas for improvement. A minority of players (especially some general public participants with less board gaming experience) initially struggled with the complexity of the rules and the online interface. Only 46% of participants agreed that “the rules of the game are simple and easy to understand”, which indicates the game might have a steeper learning curve than ideal, particularly in an online setting. In the debrief, a few people admitted they felt overwhelmed at first by the number of unit cards and resources, though they managed to catch on after a couple of rounds. As one player put it, “It was a bit confusing until I saw how others were playing, then I got it”. Moreover, several participants noted technical issues or slowness with the digital platform. One educator commented that “teaching this game face-to-face would probably be smoother—the online platform was a bit of a hurdle initially”. These observations highlight that while the game concept was sound, the delivery medium (online) introduced an extra challenge that could be removed in a physical setting. We consider this feedback in the discussion of future improvements. It is worth noting that despite these difficulties, virtually all participants completed the game and indicated that it was a valuable experience; any initial confusion was outweighed by the insights gained by the end of the session.

In summary, the results demonstrate that playing Paper Goes Green significantly enhanced participants’ life cycle thinking and intention to make sustainable choices. The improvements in knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intention were statistically significant and educationally meaningful, and they were achieved after just a single game session plus debriefing. The game’s design—particularly the requirement to manage pollution and the option to invest in green technology—effectively conveyed key concepts of green chemistry and systems thinking. Furthermore, the positive feedback on the game’s engaging nature suggests it succeeded in not only educating but also motivating the learners, an outcome crucial for longer-term impact. Some challenges regarding game complexity and online implementation were identified, pointing to directions for refining the educational tool.

4. Discussion

4.1. Paper Goes Green as an Effective Tool for Sustainability Education

The findings from this study indicate that Paper Goes Green is a highly effective tool for teaching LCA concepts and fostering pro-environmental dispositions among participants. The game’s most significant contribution lies in its ability to translate abstract principles into tangible game mechanics. By simulating a production system that players can manipulate, the game compels participants to engage in systems thinking—they must see the “big picture” of how resources flow and how waste accumulates through a sequence of processes. This holistic perspective is a critical competency for understanding sustainability challenges, which often involve complex interdependencies [6,33]. In our sessions, players began to appreciate, for example, that producing a glossy magazine-grade paper entails upstream decisions about extra bleaching and coating that ripple into greater environmental costs. Such an insight mirrors real-world analyses in life cycle assessment where improvements in one stage can cause burden shifting to another stage if one is not careful [5]. The fact that participants’ knowledge gains were strong on recognizing life cycle stages and green process characteristics suggests that the game successfully imparted a life cycle mindset.

Moreover, the improvement in attitudes and behavioral intentions demonstrates that an engaging simulation can move learners effectively and conatively, not just cognitively. After playing the game, participants felt more confident and aware of sustainability issues, and importantly, more personally invested in them—many indicated they would make an effort to buy greener products or waste less paper. This aligns with research in consumer behavior which stresses that increasing awareness and emotional engagement can lead to more sustainable choices [4]. It also resonates with gamified learning studies that show immersive experiences can shift attitudes by allowing learners to “live through” the consequences [28]. In our case, Paper Goes Green provided a safe space to experiment with unsustainable versus sustainable decisions. Players could see that neglecting pollution control or always choosing the quick-and-dirty production method led to short-term gains but long-term issues (e.g., running out of resources or being unable to fulfill a green order). This experiential learning is likely what drove the attitudinal shifts: rather than being told in a lecture that “more processed products cause more pollution”, the players discovered it on their own through the game’s outcome, making the lesson more memorable.

Our results are broadly consistent with established theories in environmental education, particularly the Knowledge–Attitude–Behavior (KAB) model [21,22]. This model suggests that increases in knowledge can lead to changes in attitudes, which in turn influence behavior (or behavioral intent). The game’s impact followed this pattern, with knowledge showing the largest gains, followed by attitudes and then behavioral intentions. Although the results indicate substantial short-term increases in knowledge, attitude, and behavioral intention, these findings reflect perceived changes immediately after the activity; actual behavioral change was not directly measured and warrants longitudinal follow-up. This cascading effect underlines the importance of combining informational content with motivational elements. The Paper Goes Green game delivered knowledge in context (embedded in play), which likely made that knowledge more actionable and relevant, thus more readily translating into attitudes and intentions. By contrast, traditional didactic approaches might increase knowledge but often fail to affect attitudes or behaviors if the content feels disconnected from the learner’s personal choices [9,23]. Here, because the game tied the knowledge to a personal competitive objective (“I want to win the game by being efficient and green”) and then connected to real life in the debrief (“How does this relate to your own consumption?”), it bridged that gap effectively.

4.2. The Role of Game Design in Bridging Abstraction to Reality

The success of Paper Goes Green can be attributed to careful game design choices that bridge abstract concepts to players’ concrete experiences. One such choice was immediate feedback on pollution generation. Every time a player made paper, the appearance of pollutant tokens created a feedback loop, reinforcing the cause-and-effect relationship. This design echoes principles from simulation-based learning—timely feedback is crucial for learners to understand the implications of their actions [24]. In the game, feedback was not delivered as a textual message but was inherent in the mechanics (pollution tokens that must be addressed). These likely enhanced players’ understanding of the principle of waste management and pollution prevention, key tenets of green chemistry. Indeed, participants specifically mentioned feedback as a factor that helped them learn, which aligns with prior studies where games providing clear outcome feedback improved learning outcomes [30].

Another effective design element was the trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits (conventional vs. green units). This mechanic forced players to wrestle with the kind of decision-making that is at the heart of sustainable development: should one incur a higher upfront cost for future gains? By making the Green Resource costly and actions limited, the game introduced a palpable tension. Participants who chose to invest in green units often commented that it “felt like a risk, but paid off later in the game”, thereby internalizing the idea that sustainability investments can lead to benefits down the line. This directly mirrors real-world scenarios, for example, a company deciding whether to install cleaner technology—a theme noted in other serious games as well [19]. The game thus served as a microcosm in which players could practice strategic thinking with sustainability in mind. That practice can build self-efficacy in making environmental decisions: having navigated such choices in the game, players might feel more confident making analogous choices (like buying a more expensive but eco-friendly product) in real life. This phenomenon is supported by literature, where well-designed games have been shown to improve learners’ confidence and intention to act by giving them an active role in problem-solving [34].

The structured debriefing was an integral extension of the game design into the learning process. While not a part of the game per se, the debrief allowed players to articulate and consolidate what they learned. This reflective step is akin to the “abstract conceptualization” stage in Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, following the concrete experience of gameplay. We found the debrief especially important to address the pedagogical simplifications of the game. For example, in the debrief, facilitators clarified that in reality even “green” processes are not entirely impact-free and that implementing green tech has economic and technical hurdles. Participants were very receptive to these discussions, often asking follow-up questions such as “Is there really a catalytic pulping method in industry?” or “How much more does chlorine-free bleaching cost to do in real factories?” Such questions indicate a deep engagement and a transfer of curiosity to real-world contexts—a primary goal of educational gaming. By linking the game experience back to reality, the debrief ensured that players would carry forward the life cycle thinking to their everyday frame of reference. Without it, there is a risk that a game remains just a game; with it, the game became a springboard for ongoing learning and questioning.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

While the results are promising, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the research employed a single-group pre-test/post-test design without a formal control group. Thus, we cannot entirely rule out alternative explanations for the observed improvements (such as a testing effect or a generally heightened awareness due to participation in an environmental activity). Future studies should include a control or comparison group—for example, a group that receives equivalent information via a traditional lecture or reading—to isolate the effects of the game-based learning approach. Comparing Paper Goes Green against conventional teaching methods would provide stronger evidence of its added value in conveying LCA concepts.

Second, the outcomes measured relied on self-report questionnaires. Self-report measures of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions are somewhat subjective and could be influenced by social desirability bias. Participants might have reported more pro-environmental attitudes post-game partly because they sensed that was the “right” thing to express after a sustainability activity. Although the significant changes we saw are likely real (given their magnitude and the consistency with qualitative feedback), future research could incorporate more objective assessments. For instance, a quiz testing factual knowledge about life cycle stages or an observational task to see if participants choose a green product when given the option might complement self-reported intentions. Additionally, including a follow-up survey week or months later would help determine if the changes in attitudes and intentions persist, addressing the question of long-term impact.

Third, the sample size and composition pose some limits. Our sample of 85, while decent for a pilot evaluation, was relatively small for generalizing to the broader public. Moreover, the participants were partly self-selected (especially the public group who chose to join a sustainability-themed game), which might mean they were more receptive or motivated than a truly random audience. Many also had higher educations, so results might differ for groups with less formal education or younger students. Future implementations of Paper Goes Green should test the game with different demographics—for example, high school students or community groups—to see if the learning outcomes hold and to gather feedback for age-appropriate modifications.

The nature of online implementation is another limitation to consider. The shift to an online board game format was born of necessity (pandemic restrictions), and it likely affected the experience. Some learning curve was spent on figuring out the interface, and technical hiccups may have distracted from the content initially. In-person gameplay could be more intuitive (handling physical cards and tokens is often easier than digital drag-and-drop) and might foster even better social interaction and engagement. On the other hand, online format has the advantage of reach and convenience. A future study could compare online vs. face-to-face sessions to see if there are differences in learning or enjoyment. We suspect in-person playtests would run smoother for newcomers and possibly amplify the engagement (as body language and direct interaction add to the experience), but this remains to be validated.

Participants’ feedback about the game’s difficulty suggests that we might improve the game design itself. Only about half found the game rules simple; the rest felt it was moderate to difficult. While a certain level of challenge is desirable to stimulate learning [35], we may consider simplifying some game elements. For instance, reducing the number of unit types or streamlining resource management could make it easier for non-gamers to grasp quickly. The balance between realism (more complexity) and playability (simplicity) is always tricky in serious game design. Our results suggest we should lean slightly more toward simplicity to ensure the game does not intimidate or alienate new players early on. Future development could involve iterative design: testing a simplified version of Paper Goes Green to see if learning outcomes remain strong while user-friendliness improves. Another possible adaptation is to create scenario-based shorter versions of the game that focus on one concept at a time (e.g., a mini-game just about waste management decisions) as a scaffold, before playing the full game.

Despite these limitations, the study opens several avenues for future research. One area worth exploring is the integration of the game into formal curricula. For example, how would playing Paper Goes Green in a classroom setting, followed by a teacher-led discussion, impact students’ learning compared to a regular lesson on LCA? Another area is investigating the behavioral translation of the game’s impact—will players change any behaviors in the weeks after playing? Perhaps a longitudinal study could track if participants report any reduction in paper use or an increase in buying recycled paper products after this intervention. Additionally, researchers could deploy the game as a professional development tool for teachers (our educator subset showed high enthusiasm, with many expressing intents to use the game in their teaching). Studying how teachers incorporate the game and whether it enhances their students’ outcomes would provide insights on scalability and practicality in educational systems.

Finally, it would be valuable to examine which specific aspects of the game yield the most learning through more granular analyses or experimental manipulations. For instance, one could create a version of the game without the green technology option and see if the absence of that decision point lessens the impact on knowledge or attitudes. Or compare a version with a debrief vs. no debrief to formally confirm the importance of the reflective discussion (though educational ethics would argue to always include some reflection in actual use) [36]. As game-based learning research matures, such component analyses help pinpoint active ingredients in the intervention [12]. In our case, we hypothesize that pollution feedback and green investment mechanics are the critical ones, but this could be tested.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, Paper Goes Green has demonstrated significant potential as an innovative educational tool for sustainability and life cycle thinking. Through a carefully crafted gameplay experience, complex environmental science concepts were made accessible and personally relevant to players. The board game format, with its engaging mechanics and competitive strategy, succeeded in bridging the gap between abstract principles and real-world decision-making. Participants not only improved their understanding of green chemistry and LCA—evidenced by large gains in self-assessed knowledge—but also showed meaningful positive shifts in their attitudes toward sustainable practices and their intentions to make greener choices as consumers.

These outcomes provide strong empirical support for the value of game-based learning in sustainable development education. The success of Paper Goes Green highlights how serious games can cultivate systems thinking by allowing learners to experiment within simplified models of reality. When players actively grapple with resource constraints, waste management, and trade-offs between short-term gains and long-term sustainability, they develop a deeper appreciation for the challenges and principles of sustainability. Importantly, the enjoyable and interactive nature of the game means that learners are not passive recipients of information, but drivers of their own learning process. This high level of engagement can lead to better retention of knowledge and potentially more durable changes in perspective.

The study’s findings also suggest that the model employed by Paper Goes Green—using an experiential simulation plus guided reflection—can be adapted to other pressing sustainability topics. Whether it is energy usage, waste reduction, or other product life cycles (plastic, electronics, etc.), the approach of “learning by playing” shows promise for translating technical concepts into everyday understanding. By fostering environmental literacy in a memorable way, such games can empower individuals to make informed decisions and adopt responsible behaviors. Ultimately, widespread adoption of life cycle thinking and sustainable consumption will be driven by education and awareness. Paper Goes Green contributes to this societal goal by providing a template of how complex science can be taught through engaging gameplay. As we refine and expand such educational games, we take a step toward a more environmentally literate society—one in which people not only understand the impacts of their choices but are motivated to choose green for the good of the planet.